Category Archives: Atheism

Recently the Church of Satan in Phoenix challenged the City Council when the tried to requested to say the opening prayer at a City Council Meeting. The City Council opens every public meeting with a prayer; a Christian prayer. The Council members reacted by holding an emergency meeting to decide what to do. They took a vote; not a vote on whether or not to let the Satanists say the opening prayer, this of course would have ended up in the State Supreme Courts where chances are the Council would have lost. They took a vote on whether or not to ban prayer all together at their Council meetings. The council voted 5 – 4 to ban prayer, rather than let the Satanists have their say. Talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face.

So who really won? Many say the Church of Satan really won, claiming that a ban on prayer is what they really wanted. Some say the Council and it’s Christian members one by not letting the Satanists say the prayer. I would say us Atheists and the Secular won this one. Let’s here if for no public prayer at Council meetings.

Like this:

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

When I was a child I had a blanket that was my shield, my protection and it was my comfort.

When I was a child I believed that thunder was god bowling, that the rain was gods tears and that Noah actually put two of every animal on the ark. As a child I believed that stepping on a crack would break my mothers back and that four leaf clovers were good luck. As a child I believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I believed that if I ate a watermelon seed a plant would grow in my tummy and that if I didn’t smile my face would freeze that way.

I know better now.

Remember when you were a kid and that story your big brother would tell you scared the hell out of you; the first 500 times they told it? Sure it was scary the first hundred times you heard it, but after hundreds of nights where there was nothing under the bed you just weren’t afraid anymore?

Well when I was a kid I also believed that if thunder was god bowling and that the rain was his tears. I believed that god would protect me from evil as long as I loved him. I believed that the devil was responsible for all the evil in the world and god was responsible for all the good.

I have grown up since then, I know that thunder is caused by an increase in pressure and temperature from lightning which produces rapid expansion of the air surrounding and within a bolt of lightning. I know that the more water vapor there is below a cloud, and the stronger an updraft is it causes the water vapor to condense into cloud water or ice particles, and precipitation will form within the cloud, and then it rains.

I also know that if no god can protect me from the evil in humans no matter how much you love him. I also know that there is good in humans that don’t even believe in god.

I have put away all my childhood things, the blankies, the dolls and the toys. It is time to put away those childhood beliefs as well.

Feminism is not an issue and it isn’t political. Feminism is a stand for what is a moral, ethical and international dilemma, the violence against, the oppression and inequality of women. I believe that Dawkins is a good man, rational, reasonable, moral, enlightened, empathetic, intellectual activist who believes, sees, speaks out and stands up for women’s rights, secular freedom and scientific education for the good of the whole of humankind. What he isn’t is a run of the mill man, biased, sexist, racist, misogynistic, religious or hypocritical. He is educated, brilliant, secular and extremely influential and is or at least should be held to a higher standard. He has put himself in a position to make a difference on a global scale for the cultural, intellectual economical, scientific and political advancement and enlightenment of humanity. He has placed himself among those who know they can and will make not only a difference but history. His work is and will be studied, taught and remembered alongside of Newton, Einstein, Darwin, DeCartes, Hume, Oppenheimer, Krauss, Tyson, Bethe, Bohr, Feynman and others who have changed the course of our very existence. So yeah, I expect more of him than most.

Recently Dawkins has been misquoted, , misinterpreted, misunderstood and had completely missed the point of feminism. This is not entirely his fault but it is entirely his responsibility. It is his responsibility to clarify, rectify and unify this divide among free thinkers that he has caused, the cause in which he has fought so hard for; secular freedom and reason depends on him. This cause of secularism and reason isn’t his to divide but it is his to unite. Common Richard, don’t group all feminists into this rape culture and militant feminism; just as you don’t like being lumped in with atheists that have caused harm in the world, those that have damaged your cause; don’t let a few damage ours.

The Revolutionary war began when Americans refused to pay taxes without being represented. They coined the phrase ‘No Taxation Without Representation’.

Well I think it is high time and equally valid to state that there should be No Representation Without Taxation.

To argue that religious institutions aren’t represented is absolutely not true. To use as an argument for this that we have a separation of church and state due to the First Amendment is equally false. There is no separation. And the First Amendment was written to protect religion from government not to protect government from religion.

Let me give you a good example;

Congress has a Congressional Prayer Caucus, a Chaplain of Congress (with an office in the Capitol) elected by Congress and paid with tax payers money. Military Chaplains are also paid with federal tax dollars. How again is this the separation of Church and State? How is this not a violation of the First Amendment? It isn’t.

Congress has had a Chaplain since 1774, no that is not a typo, the office of House and Senate Chaplain came to be before the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration Independence was written.

Here are the requirements for Tax Exempt Status per the IRS

Tax-Exempt Status

Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC Section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. To qualify for tax-exempt status, the organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):

the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;

net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder;

no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation;

the organization may not intervene in political campaigns;

and n the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

IRC Section 501(c)(3)

All organizations, including churches and religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:

their net earnings may not inure to any private shareholder or individual;

they must not provide a substantial benefit to private interests;

they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation;

they must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office;

and n the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

Congress even wrote special legislation regarding the IRS’ right to audit churches and religious institutions;

Special Rules Limiting IRS Authority to Audit a Church

Tax Inquiries and Examinations of Churches

Congress has imposed special limitations, found in section 7611 of the Internal Revenue Code, on how and when the IRS may conduct civil tax inquiries and examinations of churches. The IRS may begin a church tax inquiry only if an appropriate high-level Treasury official reasonably believes, on the basis of facts and circumstances recorded in writing, that an organization claiming to be a church or convention or association of churches may not qualify for exemption, may be carrying on an unrelated trade or business (within the meaning of IRC § 513), may otherwise be engaged in taxable activities or may have entered into an IRC § 4958 excess benefit transaction with a disqualified person.

I fail to see how being an elected member of Congress does not influence legislation.

From an article by Paul Singer, USA Today;

“We do what we can to make sure that legislation emerges with what we believe to be American, Christian values,” said caucus member John Fleming, R-La. “We believe that a democracy is only functional if there is a certain level of virtuousness among the nation. Freedom also requires a certain responsibility and that requires a certain moral code. The moral code that we as Americans have lived by for over 200 years is based on what? The Ten Commandments.”

Rep Randy Forbes VA and a dozen other Prayer Caucus members traveled to North Carolina in March to launch an initiative called PrayUSA, asking government officials and other to sign a resolution calling for prayer. The initiative is part of “a tactical strategy to effectively challenge the growing anti-faith movement in our Country,” the foundation says.

And the foundation blog advocates strongly for the defense of conservative Christians like Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who was briefly jailed for refusing to sign marriage licenses for gay couples.

“Criminalizing Christianity is not the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers,” reads a blog post on the foundation website about the Kim Davis saga. “Sadly, the balance of power in our country is being undermined within the legislative branch and increasingly supplanted by both executive fiat and judicial tyranny. The government was never designed to replace God and therefore, does not have the authority or right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature’s God….. We are fighting for our freedoms—silence and inactivity will leave us vulnerable and open to further attack. Christian…it is time for us to wake up and be engaged!”

How is this not influencing legislation?

While the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the a House and Senate Office of the Chaplain stating that it is a tradition and should be respected it is important to remember that slavery was considered a ‘tradition’ as well.

MARSH v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.(1)

A statute providing for the payment of these chaplains was enacted into law on September 22, 1789.

Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.

It can hardly be thought that in the same week Members of the First Congress voted to appoint and to pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment** for submission to the states, they intended the Establishment Clause of the Amendment to forbid what they had just declared acceptable. In applying the First Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be incongruous to interpret that Clause as imposing more stringent First Amendment limits on the states than the draftsmen imposed on the Federal Government.

This unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from a practice of prayer similar to that now challenged. We conclude that legislative prayer presents no more potential for establishment than the provision of school transportation, beneficial grants for higher education, or tax exemptions for religious organizations.

A paragraph from writings by James Madison point out that Madison was concerned about respecting the religious rights of all religious sects;

JAMES MADISON: The tenets of the chaplains elected by the majority shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

Though Madison did see the payment of the Chaplain by the National Treasury as unconstitutional, what he deemed a violation of the First Amendment was the appointment of a Protestant, not the appointment of a Chaplain.

Let me start by pointing out that Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all monotheistic religions of the same god. Call him Allah, Yahweh or Jehovah he is the same god. Something that most Christians do not know and do not want to know is that Muslims worship the same god, read the same Bible; Old and New Testament and they also believe in Jesus Christ. They, like the Jews just don’t believe he was the son of god, Islam does however see him as a prophet of god. They also differ from Christians on the Resurrection as they believe that god ascended Jesus into heaven before he died on the cross. They all three believe they are descendants of Adam, of Abraham and of Noah.

Another not well know fact and also a commonly disputed fact; as much so as their god being the same god and their holy books being the same is that Muslims claim the Quran was given to Muhhamed by the Arch Angel Gabriel. Yes that Arch Angel Gabriel.

What does all this have to do with terrorism? Just as Christians can’t all be lumped in the same group as Jim Jones, Davis Koresh, Adolf Hitler or those that took part in the Inquisitions or the Crusades, not all Muslims can be lumped in the same groups as terrorists; ISIS, Al Queda or Boko Haram.

I am fortunate enough to be in a position where I not only have a hand and a say in the raising of my 2 year old twin grandsons, within this position I am also fortunate enough that they are being raised as atheists. Like my atheist father I and their father will be teaching them about religion as much as and as often as possible, but unlike my father throughout their younger years they will hear Bible stories in the same context as fairy tales and children’s stories about dragons, Hobbits, Trolls or giants. I grew up going to Sunday School in Protestant churches to learn about the Bible all the while knowing my dad did not believe in god. But I took those that did believe and their beliefs seriously; I don’t want my grandsons to think of religion as anything other than make believe. There is one drawback to this that I can foresee however; that is how do I teach them to be respectful or at least not disrespectful to the religious who take their beliefs seriously? Or do I end the unconditional respect that is granted to religion, the religious and their institutions beginning with my grandchildren.

I say I begin to end this unearned respect demanded by and given to religion. The twins will grow up looking at those that believe in the Bible and worship god the same way they would look at someone who believed in Grimm’s Fairy Tales or worshiped the Wizard of Oz. If I am going to teach them what I believe then they are going to grow up looking at god no different than Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. The boys are not going to be lied to about these fictional characters and told they are for real, but I also cannot raise them as if they don’t exist because at least as far as Santa is concerned during the Christmas season; yes I refer to the holidays as Christmas because that is what it has always been to me, Santa is everywhere and all the other kids are lied to about him. I remember trying to explain to my youngest daughter why Santa was at every store we went to one afternoon, I think I told her he had helpers that dressed like him because everyone wanted him to be everywhere and she told me that the elves were his helpers, to which I had no reply. My grandsons however will be told the truth, Santa is just pretend, and that it is fun to pretend so lots of people pretend to be Santa and parents pretend that presents they buy were really brought from Santa just because it is fun, no other reason. I will tell them the same about the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, it’s just things we do for fun.

Although I will have a tough time selling the fun to pretend in god story; there is very little if anything about god that is ‘fun’ or ‘funny’. But then we humans do find it fun to scare the hell out of each other so I guess that works as well.

I have felt the same way about forgiveness my whole life. Forgiveness as far as I know is a Christian concept, a concept first introduced in the Bible, a concept of god’s. God forgives all sins and sinners; which in my mind kind of negates or at least means Jesus died in vain. God forgives all sins, priests offer absolution, one may buy indulgences; there are multiple ways to be forgiven for your sins. The reason god forgives sins is because if he didn’t heaven would be empty, we are all born sinners remember? This makes it inevitable that we will sin. But there is a reason god forgives us, what is the reason we are to forgive each other? If I am not mistaken scripture or at least church doctrine says that only god can forgive our sins.

So why do people feel the need, desire or the importance of forgiveness? Yes this is prompted by the shooting in North Carolina of the 9 black people in a church prayer group by an angry white kid who killed motivated by racism. The community in which these people lived and the congregation of the church as well as church going family members are already forgiving the shooter. I see this all the time. I even see it in my personal life from even atheist friends who forgive those that have raped, molested, beaten, lied and betrayed them. Some admit that forgiving is more for themselves than those they forgive and there is a part of me that understands that need to let things go so you can move on. But letting go and forgiving to me are two different things. Forgiving makes things okay, well that being the point making things okay so you can move on also makes it okay for the person who hurt you so they can move on as well. If they move on, move past or get over what they did doesn’t that make it like it never happened? Doesn’t that make is so it doesn’t matter? Doesn’t that mean they will do it again and that no one is held responsible for what they did? Sometimes anger is a good thing, a useful thing, a motivating thing. Anger makes sure that no one forgets these crimes, for it is the doom of men that they forget. Forgetting is a surety it will happen again and again and again. I will never forgive my rapist, nor will I ever forgive my ex abusive husband for all the beatings he gave me. To I wallow in the past no, do I remember the past and make sure that others know the past yes. Am I angry about what happened all these years later no, but I am angry at those who wronged me all these years later. My anger doesn’t exist at the forefront of my daily life but don’t ever doubt it is in there, some where.

This shooting in North Carolina should not be made to be okay by anyone. Especially before the shooter has been punished for his crimes. And I gotta say this………9 black older people in a prayer group, one young white kid comes in and sits down at the table….no one for a minute wondered what the hell he was doing there? Just sayin……

It is too often said that without god we humans would behave like wild animals. That we will fornicate in the street, rape, murder and live life without morals.

Animals behave more ‘godly’ than any human, even the most pius. Think about it.

The very religious suppress male sexuality and oppress female sexuality. The Bible clearly dictates, many times that sexual intercourse and ‘wooing’ is for one reason and one reason only; to procreate and create more humans. God clearly dictates that to fornicate for pleasure is a sin and to prevent pregnancy or to abort pregnancy and even to masturbate and ‘waste’ your sperm are all mortal sins punishable by death or eternal damnation. Rape is wrong, war is wrong, murder is wrong and adultery is wrong. For females to flaunt, enhance or show their beauty is a sin. To abandon, neglect or to molest and abuse your children is a sin. To destroy the earth by the crimes of arson, pollution, poison air, radiation, nuclear or chemical weapons and by logging or fishing and polluting our oceans are sins. These are all behaviors of human beings. Animals only have sex to procreate and to assure the survival of their species, animals don’t practice birth control or abortion nor do they masturbate. They don’t rape; in fact the largest percentage of species females are the ones that choose their mates, or not choose any with no rape. Those animals that mate for life to not ‘cheat’. In the animal kingdom it is the female who plain and unassuming. This is a way of protecting her from being seen so she may protect her offspring by hiding; the males are the brightly colored, larger in stature and it is the males who fight for the right to mate or display elaborate mating dances and rituals to win the females permission. Animals don’t kill or use food and natural resources beyond what the need to survive. They don’t use or do anything out of greed or materialism. Animals don’t murder out of hatred nor do they commit suicide because they are depressed. It would seem to me that if we behaved more like animals this world would be a better place and we would be as godly as god demands we be.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, on April 6th of this year, the President of the United States traveled halfway around the globe, and in the nation of Turkey, essentially proclaimed that the United States was not a Judeo-Christian nation.

I don’t challenge his right to do that or dispute the fact that it is what he believes, but I wish he had asked and answered two questions when he did that. The first question was whether or not we ever considered ourselves a Judeo-Christian nation, and the second one was, if we did, what was the moment in time where we ceased to be so? If asked the first question, Mr. Speaker, you would find that the very first act of the first congress in the United States was to bring in a minister and have congress led in prayer, and afterwards read four chapters out of the bible. A few years later, when we unanimously declared our independence, we made certain that the rights in there were given to us by our creator. When the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, it ended the revolutionary war and birthed this nation. The signers of that document made clear that it began with this phrase, “in the name of the most holy and undivided trinity.”

When our constitution was signed, the signers made sure that they punctuated the end of it by saying, “in the year of our lord, 1787”, and 100 years later in the supreme court case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, the Supreme Court indicated, after recounting the long history of faith in this country, that we were a Christian nation. President George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, all disagreed with the President’s comments, and indicated how the bible and Judeo-Christian principles were so important to this nation. Franklin Roosevelt even led this nation in a six-minute prayer before the invasion of perhaps the greatest battle in history, in the Invasion of Normandy, and asked for God’s protection. After that war, congress came together and said, “Where are we going to put our trust?” It wasn’t in our weapons systems, or our economy, or our great decisions here. It was in God we trust, which is emboldened directly behind you. So, if in fact we were a nation that was birthed on those Judeo-Christian principles, what was that moment in time when we ceased to so be?

It wasn’t when a small group of people succeeded in taking prayer out of our schools, or when they tried to cover up the word referencing God on the Washington Monument. Or, when they tried to stop our veterans from having flag-folding ceremonies at their funerals on a voluntary basis because they mentioned God, or even when they tried in the new visitor’s center to change the national motto, and to refuse to put “in God we trust” in there. No, Mr. Speaker, it wasn’t any of those times because they can rip that word off of all of our buildings and still those Judeo-Christian principles are so interwoven in a tapestry of freedom and liberty, that to begin to unravel one is to unravel the other.

That’s why we have filed the Spiritual Heritage Resolution, to help reaffirm that great history of faith that we have in this nation and to say to those individual’s who have yielded to the temptation of concluding that we are no longer a Judeo-Christian nation, to come back. To come back and look at those great principles that birthed this nation, and sustain us today. We believe if they do, they will conclude as President Eisenhower did and later Gerald Ford repeated, that “without God, there could be no American form of government. Nor, an American way of life.” Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, the most basic expression of Americanism. Thus the founding fathers of America sought and thus with God’s help, it will continue to be.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Is this not a clear violation of the First Amendment? Absolutely. The very fact that there is a Congressional Prayer Caucus is in direct violation of the First Amendment. How can this be okay? It’s not.

First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774

O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.

We ask Your blessing upon this assembly and upon all to whom the authority of government is given.

The issues of these days and in coming months remain complicated and potentially divisive. Endow each Member with wisdom and equanimity, that productive policies and solutions might be reached for the benefit of our Nation.

Please send Your spirit of peace upon those areas of our world where violence and conflict endure, and threaten to multiply. May all Your children learn to live in peace.

And, may all that is done within the people’s House this day be for Your greater honor and glory.

This ‘daily thought’ expresses the idea of America that has not changed since it’s founding with one small, cosmetic, and condescending guise of not only freedom of religion but of freedom from religion. It is meant to appease the secular and atheist population of These United States of America but it actually does in endorse her contempt, intolerance, and ‘holier than now’ moral superiority those of no faith. This daily thought is a reflection of what is thought daily by those of faith; what is assumed and presumed by those of faith; that everyone believes in god not matter how or where they worship him and even if they don’t worship him; but believing him none the less. Sure our gracious founding fathers fought and died for their religious freedom and for that freedom of fellow Americans taking oaths to protect this freedom at any and all costs while overlooking or perhaps even looking past the possibility of anyone wanting the freedom of no religion at all thus assuring no one could make them worship at all but no where, no where in any document written that gave birth to our nation and systems of laws and justice is there any promise or consideration made for someones right to not believe in god at all.

Read what Obama didn’t write down, hear what he didn’t say and think about what he thought. He thought he was being politically correct and including the secular and non-believers, I think he was excluding us.

My comments throughout are in red letters, yes, sarcastically like Jesus’ words.

05/07/2015

“Presidential Proclamation –– National Day of Prayer, 2015

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER, 2015

– – – – – – –

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

When women and men of all backgrounds and beliefs are free to practice their faiths without fear or coercion, it bolsters our religious communities and helps to lift up diverse and vibrant societies throughout our world. In America, our Nation is stronger because we welcome and respect people of all faiths, he doesn’t say ‘and people of no faith’ and because we protect the fundamental right of all people to practice their faith how they choose, to change their faith, or to practice no faith at all, he doesn’t say or to have no faith at all and to do so free from persecution and discrimination he doesn’t say from exclusion or forced inclusion. Today, as we pause in solemn reflection, we celebrate the religious liberty the secular and non-believers don’t celebrate religious liberty, we don’t have religion we cherish here at home, and we recommit to standing up for religious freedom around the world the secular and the non-believing would not commit to standing up for religious freedom, many of us like my self who are anti-theists would only commit to not standing up for any of them or commit to standing against all of them. .

For many of us, prayer is an important expression of faith –– an essential act of worship and a daily discipline that allows reflection, provides guidance, and offers solace. Through prayer we find the strength to do God’s work: to feed the hungry, care for the poor, comfort the afflicted, and make peace where there is strife. In times of uncertainty or tragedy, Americans offer humble supplications for comfort for those who mourn, for healing for those who are sick, and for protection for those who are in harm’s way. When we pray, we are reminded that we are not alone –– our hope is a common hope, our pain is shared, and we are all children of God. He isn’t acknowledging those of us who do not believe in god; a pretentious gesture meant to purposely say that even though they are morally superior to non-believer they graciously give all people consideration with absolute pity for us who just don’t know any better. Those of us who do not believe in god do not share this common hope, those of us who do not believe in gad have a common hope that no one else would either, believers do not share our pain and they are the cause of ours; and no we are not all children of god. There is no god.

Around the globe, too few know the protections we enjoy in America. Millions of individuals worldwide are subjected to discrimination, abuse, and sanctioned violence simply for exercising their religion or choosing not to claim a faith. Presumptuously condescendingly saying we have faith we just don’t claim to. Communities are threatened with genocide and driven from their homelands because of who they are or how they pray Once again excluding concern for those of us who are threatened with genocide and driven from our homelands because of who we are or that we don’t pray, stating consideration for those that do pray. The United States will continue to stand against these reprehensible attacks, work to end them, and protect religious freedom throughout the world Add another deliberate exclusion of the phrase protecting freedom from religion throughout the world.. And we remember those who are prisoners of conscience maybe just a hint of the suggestion that conscience belongs only to those that have faith; fair enough to say giving the deliberate restating repeatably this thought is of the faithful and or those of any faith; not of no faith–– who are held unjustly because of their faiths or beliefs Is this to say that there aren’t any non-believers who are held unjustly because or their lack of faith and no beliefs? –– and we will take every action within our power to secure their release again restating their is no power used to secure the release of non-believers being held captive by the faithful. .

In the face of tremendous challenges, prayer is a powerful force for peace, justice, and a brighter, more hopeful tomorrow. is this to say that us non-believers don’t want peace or worse that we prevent it? That we are unjust with no hope for or of tomorrow? Today, as we join together in fellowship, we seek to see our own reflection in the struggle of others, to be our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, and to keep faith –– in one another, in the promise of our Nation, and in the Almighty he had up until the Almighty. .

The Congress, by Public Law 100–307, as amended, has called on the President to issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a “National Day of Prayer.” Can we call upon him to issue a proclamation designating the second Thursday in May as a “National Day of No Prayer”?

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 7, 2015, as a National Day of Prayer. I invite the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths How about we citizens thank ourselves in accordance with our own ideas, and consciences and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings for our hard work, and I join all people of faith yet again an exclusion, maybe even a stand against of non-believers in asking for God’s continued guidance, mercy, and protection because we can’t ask god since we don’t believe in him; from their judging eyes don’t accept him and therefore aren’t worthy of his mercy and not deserving of his protection as we seek a more just world.Slightly suggesting we non-believers are un just.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty–ninth.

Let me start by stating the obvious, I am a non-believer. But……what if god didn’t forsake Jesus but Jesus actually forsake god by breaking his commandments and preaching against the words and commandments given to Moses by god? From the get go Jesus comes out saying the way to heaven is through him, that we are to obey him as we obey god. Christians call him the Lord. Now, given the fact that the first two commandments, and to theologians the most important ones, clearly state we are not to worship anyone or anything but god. There you go. Was not Jesus blatantly and defiantly breaking these commandments?

In the New Testament Jesus says that Moses went easy on the Israelites because he understood their sinful nature. Jesus says that if you lust at another mans wife even just with your eyes if you notice her beauty then you have committed adultery. He says that god has sent him to tell them that they need to get to him by way of his son, not the way Moses had told them. He basically throws out Moses’ credentials and says he didn’t do what god told him to do.

God had already commanded the deaths of many people for crimes not much worse than those that Jesus commits. What if god told the leaders of the Jewish Temples to accuse Jesus, what if he told Pontius Pilot to crucify Jesus, what if at the very least he let it happen as punishment for Jesus defying god?

There is a lot of hoopla over how progressive the current Pope is. But is he really? Well if you want to call finding new ways for the Catholic Church to take credit for years of scientific advancement and for Darwin’s revolutionary discoveries and observations and that this Pope is the most gracious and loving father because he can love all god’s children even homosexuals then I would have to say that this Pope is really good at saying the right words and phrases that get the people to think he is accepting homosexuals in the church and that he is scientific and open-minded.

Let me start with he ‘acceptance’ of homosexuals in the church and in the clergy. He is not saying that Christians shouldn’t have problems with homosexuals, he saying Christians can, by getting them in the church doors, stop homosexuals from having sex ergo stop them from sinning. By accepting gay men into the clergy they have to take a vow of celibacy. Problem solved. By accepting gay men into the congregation where abstinence until marriage is the rule and where marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman….well here again problem solved.

Now lets talk about what I consider to be even more underhanded and sneaky than tricking homosexuals into becoming Catholic; Pope Francis acknowledging that Darwin’s theory of evolution and the big bang theory are real. Now the big bang theory is pretty easy for Christians to hijack, all they have to do is say that god caused the big bang which still gives him credit for the creation of the universe. But trying to steal Darwin’s theory will be more difficult, as least to anyone with any amount of intelligence. This Pope very clearly does not have an understanding of Darwin’s theory, and most Christians don’t either. For the Pope to say Darwin was right he is saying that the Bible is wrong. Does anyone really believe that is what is doing? If it is does anyone really think the church will let him get away with this? Darwin says we all evolved from a single-celled organism. The Bible says god created man whole, walking upright and that he made woman from the rib of the man. Right there this whole acceptance of evolution fails. How exactly is the Pope saying humans have evolved if we physically are the same as we were when we were created? Even if he is only conceding that we have intellectually evolved how much can we have evolved if we were created with an understanding of how life began (biblically), with an understanding of language, with the knowledge of all living species on earth and what we could and could not eat, which plants and trees we could eat from, how to grow crops, how to live in a society etc.

Pope Francis needs to actually read ‘The Descent of Man’, ‘On Natural Selection’ and ‘On The Origin of Species’. Clearly he has not. Well somewhere someone in the Church had to of read ‘On Natural Selection’ because they used it to enforce anti-antisemitism and support Hitler’s perverse us of it for his eugenics experiments.

Bottom line is this, once again the lack of education that has kept Christians faithful has paid off for the church once again. If there is one thing the church is supreme for it is keeping its followers in the dark.

Some atheists, secular and non-believers struggle with the dilemma of whether or not to read or expose their children to the bible. I was raised by an atheist father and non church attending Methodist mother who took us to Sunday school so we could learn about the bible to help us one day decide for ourselves on matters of religion. (I wasn’t baptized). However, as much as I am thankful for my awesome parents for their decision to raise me that way, I did learn about the bible as being holy and to be god’s words. Because children of religious people are raised that the bible is the sacred undisputed word of god when they grow up they very often fear doubting this book even if their common sense tells them to. I raised my kids in a secular atmosphere and read the bible to them often and as a book to be taken seriously while pointing out it’s contradictions and flaws, most of which they saw for themselves and didn’t really need me to show it to them. I am now a grandmother of boys being raised without religion in secular homes. I have decided that I am going to read the bible to them also but not in the same way as I did my own kids. I am going to read it to them as fairy tales just like Mother Goose, The Brother’s Grimm or Aesop’s Fables. I think if they are raised hearing biblical stories as fairy tales they will never consider taking the bible seriously! Biblical stories are as silly and fantastical as fairy tales and mythological stories so why not?

Like this:

I know that my readers and those that know me will assume they know which side of this issue I am on. But they will be wrong. I have never been shy about my contempt for religion and though this Supreme Court Ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby’s objection to the company insurance covering 4 kinds of ‘contraception’ on grounds of protecting their religious freedom I don’t necessarily see this as a religious issue; and the Supreme Court doesn’t see it as only a religious issue, it is a moral one.

It is important to understand that the objection is not against all contraception, it is against Plan B (the morning after pill), Ella (which works up to 5 days after sex) and 2 different IUD’s (Intra Uterine Devices). The argument is that these are aborticides and not contraception. Though I can see their view on Plan B and Ella I do not agree that IUD’s are aborticides, none the less this is the argument.

Here is the section of the ruling that I find to be the most important;
(3) HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverage and contraceptive method she uses. But RFRA’s question is whether the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the objecting parties’ ability to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs.The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects“an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 689; and Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 248–249, distinguished. Pp. 35–38.

Let’s pull out this sentence and look at it on it’s own; The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. From that sentence let’s pull out the words moral philosophy.

I will say that my own personal views on abortion are very conflictive. I think that morally abortion is wrong except in cases of incest and rape. However I do agree with a woman’s right to choose, to a point. This all boils down to ‘when life begins’ dilemma. I am of the opinion that an embryo is not ‘alive’ but a fetus is, this means that after 8 weeks I think abortion is murder. I also feel that by 8 weeks there is no reason why a woman would not have made the decision to have a baby or not. That being said the difficulty lies in what is moral and what is immoral. I find it rather hypocritical of Christians to preach morality given the immoral acts of God throughout the Bible. However we happen to agree on the immorality of abortion, but disagree on when life begins. I admittedly commend the owners of Hobby Lobby for standing by their convictions.

BUT; when I pull out this sentence It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. I have to say hold on. It is this stance of the Court that enables acts like female genital mutilation to not be illegal. Morality must be judged when it is inflicted on another human being. I a woman wants to cut off her own clitoris that is her business, but when she cuts of the clitoris of another female this is immorality at it’s peak. The same applies to circumstances involving keeping someone alive by artificial means and a loved one wants to pull the plug but another loved one cries it is against their religion to do so. If the person being kept alive would not want to be kept alive that way then pull the plug, in turn if the person being kept alive had the religious belief that it would be wrong then don’t do it. This goes for acts of rape and incest as well as any oppression of any other human being or acts of violence against them. One cannot commit an immoral act upon ones self.

I by no means am trying to divert the focus of the kidnapped girls in Nigeria away from the Islamic terrorists that took them, but, I find it really disturbing to hear Christian leaders and clergy expressing empathy and outrage about it. Why? Because the only reason they are doing so is because they do it just to show how bad Muslims are. They do it to in a way that says Christians are better than Muslims. These are the same Christians who will be praying for the kidnapped girls AND for their kidnappers. These are the same Christians that will in the end forgive these Islam terrorists. I do not for a second believe that they have concern for these girls outside the scope of their being kidnapped by Muslims.

Too often when the cruelty of God is pointed out to Christians, they respond with statements like ‘we are New Testament people’ or ‘I follow the teachings of Christ’. Conservative Christians speak out against same-sex marriage or stand behind God’s condemnation of homosexuality there are always those Christians who get offended and defensive arguing that not all Christians share those judgmental and hateful beliefs. They will say that Christ was loving, tolerant and accepting of gay men and the disabled, diseased or deformed. These Christians will also say that Christ wants ‘Peace on earth’ and teaches mankind to be compassionate, kind, unbiased and humble.Humility is emphasized. They most definitely are not speaking about the Jesus on the New Testament.

Matthew 10:35 – 3935

35Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword.

36For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law ,against her mother in law.

37And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

38He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

39And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Luke 12:51 – 53

51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

That is not a peaceful or humble Jesus.

Romans 1:24 – 32

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts t impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,

25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;

27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

29The were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,

32Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

1 Corinthians 6:9 -10

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, no men who practice homosexuality.

10nor thieves,nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. I would say Jesus shares his father’s views on homosexuals and lesbians, including that their sin is punishable by death.

This is a committee of the catholic church and evangelical christians.

is a vital document used in cases like the Hobby Lobby suit and the recently vetoed bill that made to Gov. Brewer’s desk here in Arizona that looked to allow christian businesses to refuse services to gay customers.

Instead of stating all the obvious civil rights issues I am going to dissect this document using their bible to do it.

This documents preamble begins with citing that theirs is a 2000 year old tradition of resisting tyranny. I stand firm that the worst tyrannical leader in history is god. They try to add to their self-righteousness by acknowledging, very vaguely, any past ‘indiscretions’ by some christian institutions, and claim a christian heritage from those that rescued discarded babies from the trash heaps of Roman cities, those who risked their own lives by helping those struck with the plague and those that rather than deny their faith died in the coliseum. They continue on to say that it was christians that saved not only their literature but that and the art of western culture after barbarians invaded Europe. They don’t however say when. Here I must begin to interject. History very clearly tells us that the church burned unapproved art that got by their all-seeing eyes to be created in the first place. And the church is solely responsible for the book burnings of non christian literature all throughout history. They also claim sole responsibility for ending the slave trade in Europe. Next is the boast of the hundreds of societies that help the poor, imprisoned and child laborer. I stand alongside the late great Christopher Hitchens that christians have made a career out of the exploitation of the poor.They even go so far as to claim that it was the christians that challenged the royalty of Europe that made modern democracy possible. Really? Wow. But there’s more. They say they have a devotion to human dignity by working to end human trafficking and sexual slave trades. Next is one of my favorite claims. The work they do in Africa to help end Aids. Help? Sure with conditions. The church has conditions that if aids victims practice abstinence and monogamy they will receive their help. They actually claim scientific studies show that the use of condoms has not stopped the spread of aids AT ALL. They have the nerve not to distribute condoms because it promotes promiscuity and does nothing to prevent the spread of aids. They have that audacity to enforce their contraception beliefs on victims of aids.

Now for their declaration, they declare to fight for the rights of the unborn, the sick and the elderly. In other words against abortion, contraception, DNR’s and assisted suicide. Then there’s the protection of the sacred institution of marriage where they don’t stop at same-sex marriages but continue marching on against divorce, against premarital sex, against cohabitation and against polygamy.

First they tear into stem cell research claiming that there will be mass production of embryos produced to be destroyed. This boils down to the when life begins debate and the actual ‘production’ of embryos. This is not conception from procreation. And one could argue that the embryos are not destroyed they are transformed into new life as new cells. This is a practice that saves lives. It can prevent people from suffering cure a number of horrific diseases. They are being hypocrites. Their issue with this is really about science creating life instead of god. The argument that global warming can’t be true because only god can destroy the earth man cannot is behind this view, theirs is the view that mankind cannot create life only god can. Well obviously since the splitting of the atom and the industrial revolution mankind can destroy the earth, and obviously science has proved through stem cell research that we can also create life.

Medically speaking life does not begin until the embryo becomes a fetus. That’s my argument there. Here though I must throw in my question as to who exactly is going to support all these unwanted children? Who is going to raise them? If women get abortions because they can’t care for them stopping the abortion isn’t going to change the fact that these children won’t be cared for. They will either be condemned to a life of abuse, neglect and poverty. But then again a life time of suffering is essential in christian dogma. And what about the pregnancies that are a result of rape and incest. I refuse to adhere to statistics that are supposed to reflect the number of these pregnancies because it is a fact that only a small percentage of rapes are reported let alone make it to court. That however is another issue but a directly related one. Now, if the christians could fix that problem…they can however fix the other problem of preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place by not fighting the use of contraception. Without contraception, even in the perfect christian delusional world where only married people have sex denying women the ability to control how many children they will have and when is condemning us to a life of legalized prostitution. This is the ultimate oppression of women, it results in a womans inability to obtain an education and to embark on a career or even have a minimum wage job in an economy where it is next to impossible to live above the poverty line without two incomes. And lets not leave out the fact that this ensures countless numbers of children that will be born into and live in poverty lapse of proper nutrition and education. Oh but wait, without the poor who would the christians exploit. Seems to be a little to convenient for their cause.

Now to assisted suicide. This is one of the most blatant forms of abuse there is. These servants of god who claim to spend their life putting an end to suffering are doing anything but yet again. Forcing a person to live in pain is well, fucked up. Speaking as a person who has chronic pain due to spinal stenosis and who has a family history of early onset Alzheimer’s they have no right to condemn me. If I inherit the Alzheimer’s gene, which it is a sure bet either me or one of my two sisters will, I have asked my family to either help me end it when I lose all moments of clarity or to look the other way when I decide it is time. How dare they say that they would be saving me by forcing me to live in a state of dementia and undeniable pain. How dare they impose that on me. And what right have they got to tell anyone that their lives would be of quality if they were only breathing because of artificial means. Aren’t they playing god here themselves? If god has ceased my breathing let me die, not that I believe god has that ability or uses it, who are they to play god?

Now let’s look at their views on marriage and divorce. I have always defended the Westboro church, you know the god hates fags people, in that they are right. Not right in their actions but in that god does hate fags. The bible very clearly states that he who lies with another man as he lie with a woman shall be put to death. I don’t think there is any way to misinterpret that. This bullshit they spew about not hating the sinner just the sin, well that doesn’t and can’t apply here. God offers no forgiveness of options of repent and be forgiven on this one. This sin is to god so bad that when Lot offered up his virgin daughters to the men that wanted to rape the male guests in his house god destroyed the city of Gomorrah for that attempt of the sin of sodomy but spared Lot before doing so for offering his daughters rather than commit the sin of not protecting a guest in one’s house. That says to me pretty plainly which god sees as the greater sin. For that matter offering up daughters against their will is something god did from the beginning. He himself in a sense raped Mary, or at least his spirit did when it impregnated her without her consent. And I will use scripture against them as they are using scripture for their defense.

Throughout the book of Genesis alone there are numerous condoned, encouraged and even ordered occasions where barren wives gave maidservants to their husbands so that they could have children. Sarah did it for Abraham, even after he let the Pharaoh of Egypt take her after lying and saying that she was his sister so that the Pharaoh wouldn’t kill him so that he could have his wife. Sarah gave Abram a woman named Hagar. After Sarah regretted this decision Abram told Sarah she could deal with Hagar as she pleased and Hagar ended up fleeing from them. Well god directly intervenes by sending an angel to convince Hagar to return telling her that she will give birth to a son and promises her many more if she obeys. She does. Ismael is born. Then god decides that he will give Sarah who is not of the age that she has ceased to bleed, god gives back her bleeding so that she too can conceive and give Abraham another son. I must add here the fact that Sarah is also Abraham’s half-sister, they have the same father but different mothers. This decadence is what the christians claim will happen if they don’t put an end to same-sex marriages and sex out of wed lock. Abraham’s story is not over yet. He sent a servant to the house of his kindred to fetch a wife for his son Isaac. It is important to note that Abraham insists that his son marry a daughter from his father’s house. Abraham’s servant took an oath to take his master’s brother’s daughter to be Isaacs wife. In other words Isaac was to marry his first cousin. Out of this marriage comes a son, Jacob. Jacob wants to marry a girl named Rachel but to do so he must be her fathers servant for seven years, which he does. He ends up getting tricked into marrying the older sister Leah but asks to live seven more years as a servant to ‘pay’ for Rachel which he does. Well Leah bears Jacob children but Rachel is barren so Rachel gives him her handmaid Bilhah and she bears Jacob sons. Then when Leah could no longer bear sons she gave her handmaid Zilpah to Jacob to wife and conceive more sons. Their decadence goes even deeper but don’t relate here. Jacob is rewarded with wealth and lands for his fruitful multiplying. And we’re still in Genesis. This is the sanctity of marriage that christians are fighting to preserve?